https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1728257846897463590?t=Y84MU2z98twxcWcAeoIymQ&s=08 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent/State Tax Officer for re-consideration, in which case, the first respondent, after receipt of reply from the petitioner is directed to fix a date for personal hearing of the petitioner, peruse the documents produced by the petitioner in the form of reply/objections and after conducting a full-fledged hearing, the respondent is directed to pass a speaking order, and also record reasons in the event of rejection of the reply, if any and thereafter, shall pass final orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is also hereby directed to appear before the respondent-Department on the date fixed for hearing without fail. Since this Court has set aside the impugned order dated 01.06.2023, the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 04.10.2023, whereby, the petitioner’s bank account has been ordered to be attached is also set aside, as the said order, dated 04.10.2023 is nothing but an aftermath of impugned order dated 01.06.2023. Consequently, order, if any, passed against the petitioner attaching their bank account is directed to be lifted. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 19.10.2023 sd Index : yes/no Neutral Citation : yes/no Note : Issue order copy on 20.10.2023 To 1. The State Tax Officer (ST) Alwarpet Assessment Circle, Room No.207, 2nd Floor, Integrated Commercial Tax and Registration Building, South Tower, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) South I, Chennai – 600 035. 3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., rep. by its Manager, Captitale Ground Floor, 555, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018. Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd W.P.No.30453 of 2023 19.10.2023 2/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.10.2023
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
W. P.No.30453 of 2023and
W.M.P.No.30066 of 2023
Sundar Prabhu Deva …Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Tax Officer (ST)
Alwarpet Assessment Circle,
Room No.207, 2nd Floor,
Integrated Commercial Tax and Registration Building,
South Tower, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) South I, Chennai – 600 035.
3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., rep. by its Manager, Captitale Ground Floor,
555, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018. …Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records in the order passed by the first respondent in GSTIN/33AHMPP6587C1Z1/2019-
20 dated 01.06.2023 and the consequential letter GSTIN/33AHMPP6587C1Z1/2017-18 and 2019-20 dated 04.10.2023 issued by the second respondent to the third respondent and to quash both the order and the letter as arbitrary and illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar
For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran,
Government Advocate
O R D E R
With consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of providing health insurance to its customers is an assessee on the files of the respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter, referred to as ‘TNGST Act’ and the challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the first respondent, viz., State Tax Officer (ST) dated 01.06.2023, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay tax and penalty at the rates mentioned in the impugned order and the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 04.10.2023, whereby, the petitioner’s bank account has been ordered to be attached by the third respondent.
3. Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the main ground, on which, the impugned order assailed is on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded before passing impugned orders. The learned counsel submits that though the show cause notice, dated 04.03.2023, was alleged to have been issued, the same was not served directly to the petitioner by any other modes of communications such as Post, e-mail, etc. but, was only uploaded in the online Portal. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice.
4. On the other hand, Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government
Advocate for the respondent-Department would submit that the respondentDepartment has issued show cause notice, dated 04.03.2023 however, the same was returned with an endorsement, ”Left” and therefore, having left with no other option, the respondent-Department has uploaded the show cause notice through on-line portal, thereby, fixing a date of hearing to the petitioner on 17.03.2023, at 11.00 a.m. Since the petitioner failed to file reply to the show cause notice, the first respondent/State Tax Officer proceeded to confirm the proposals contained in the show cause notice. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the impugned order is sustainable in law.
5 Refuting to the aforesaid contention of the respondentDepartment that the show cause notice addressed to the petitioner was returned with endorsement ‘Left, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even assuming for argument’s sake that the petitioner has not accepted the show cause notice, the failure on the part of the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice would in no way would deprive the rights of the petitioner for being afforded with opportunity of personal hearing before passing final assessment order, especially, in circumstances, where, orders, which are prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner is passed. Further, the learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court to last para of the show cause notice dated 04.03.2023 and submitted that, though in the last para, the respondent-Department has called for reply/objections from the petitioner granting 30 days’ time, however, in the very same para, particularly, in three lines above, the respondent-Department has fixed the date for personal hearing of the petitioner on 17.03.2023, and the same is much prior to the time fixed for filing reply. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that no personal hearing was provided even after expiry of 30 days and straight-away the petitioner has been slapped with the impugned order. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the same.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned Government Advocate upon instructions being received from the respondent-Department fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner after expiry of 30 days and therefore, submitted that appropriate orders may be passed, however, pleaded that in case the Court intends to remand the matter back to the respondent-Department for fresh consideration, appropriate direction may be issued to the petitioner to appear before the respondent-Department on the date fixed for hearing.
7. Heard Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Considering the nature of order that is to be passed herein, this Court is of the view that the third respondent need not be served with notice. Accordingly, notice to third respondent is dispensed with.
8. On perusal of the show cause notice dated 04.03.2023, which has culminated in the impugned order, dated 01.06.2023, it is seen that in first sentence of last para, the respondent-Department has called forth reply/objections from the petitioner within 30 days and in the very same para, particularly, in three lines above, the petitioner has been asked to appear for personal hearing on 17.03.2023, which itself is much prior to the date fixed for filing reply, which per se would show that the real intention of the respondent-Department is not to provide fair opportunity to the
petitioner to defend their case, but, only to put the petitioner in peril. Had it been the real intention of the respondent-Department to provide an fair opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, then, the respondentDepartment would obviously, granted sufficient time to the petitioner to hear them in person and waited for the petitioner’s reply/objections. Whereas, the respondent-Department proceeded to confirm the proposals contained in the show cause notice, without waiting for reply to be filed by the petitioner.
8.1 De hors the above, even the show cause notice, dated 04.03.2023 was not served upon the petitioner directly by means of post or any other communication, whereas, the same was uploaded in the online Portal. All these would go to show that the opportunities, alleged to have been granted to the petitioner are not the real ones, but were the opportunities provided at nominal level and the same cannot be construed as fair opportunities. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent/State Tax Officer for re-consideration, in which case, the first respondent, after receipt of reply from the petitioner is directed to fix a date for personal hearing of the petitioner, peruse the documents produced by the petitioner in the form of reply/objections and after conducting a full-fledged hearing, the respondent is directed to pass a speaking order, and also record reasons in the event of rejection of the reply, if any and thereafter, shall pass final orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is also hereby directed to appear before the respondent-Department on the date fixed for hearing without fail. Since this Court has set aside the impugned order dated
01.06.2023, the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated
04.10.2023, whereby, the petitioner’s bank account has been ordered to be attached is also set aside, as the said order, dated 04.10.2023 is nothing but an aftermath of impugned order dated 01.06.2023. Consequently, order, if any, passed against the petitioner attaching their bank account is directed to be lifted. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.10.2023
sd
Index : yes/no
Neutral Citation : yes/no
Note : Issue order copy on 20.10.2023
To
1. The State Tax Officer (ST)
Alwarpet Assessment Circle,
Room No.207, 2nd Floor,
Integrated Commercial Tax and Registration Building,
South Tower, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) South I, Chennai – 600 035.
3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., rep. by its Manager, Captitale Ground Floor, 555, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018.
Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,
sd W.P.No.30453 of 2023
19.10.2023
2/2